October 23, 2014, 05:46:08 PM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - preppyak

Pages: 1 ... 43 44 [45] 46 47 ... 53
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D mk II still a viable option?
« on: May 29, 2012, 03:57:55 PM »
* 5D3 has clean video: no aliasing/moire anymore. That's a huge advantage over the 5D2.
Would you pay double the price for it? Id gladly spend a little more for it (think Nikon D800 v D800E), but not a $1500 premium for something I can largely handle with plugins.

Just very different markets really. What the 5dIII serves is very different than the audience the 5dII served

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D mk II still a viable option?
« on: May 29, 2012, 03:49:07 PM »
Not only is it still viable, it may be a better option that the MkIII if he's not interested in video.  The
price difference in the two will buy a great lens (or two) or even a second body.  Canon is seeming
to bend over backwards towards the video imaging crowd lately at the expense of the still shooter,
packing their offerings with (for me at least) unnecessary, unwanted and unused features that have
to drive the price up.
It cracks me up when I see this. The upgrades for video for the 5DIII were basically no moire, a choice of codecs, and a tiny bit more resolution. Everything else is a stills upgrade (since video doesn't use the 61pt AF, dedicated AF processor, the 6fps, etc). A video person probably wouldn't spend double the price for a 5DIII, where as an event shooter/wedding photog would. The 5dIII is basically a dream wedding camera, not a dream video camera.

Anyway, to answer the OP, the 5dII is excellent for its price point, especially if you can get it through Canon Loyalty for $1400+tax. Or through the various Ebay deals that have had it well below $2000. I have no problem shooting kayaking with my 60D (essentially the same as the 5D AF), I just know I won't always nail every shot. But the trade off will be you'll get great landscapes compared to the 7D, and more useable low-light. So unless you're doing more than 50% sports stuff, it's worth it.

I was quoted $1.12 per $100 insured, which comes to just over $80 per year for me. I put everything into a multi-page PDF and emailed it to them prior to meeting with my agent in-office.
Interesting, I must have just gotten a lazier agent who didn't want to put the work in. I think my value for VA was like 1.25 per $100 insured.

This weekend I actually did an inventory and added up the total, depreciated, used value of all my equipment, and came up with $1850.  Quite amazing, considering I have only paid out-of-pocket about $650 for all of it.  Seeing the total value of my kit makes me think insuring it would be a good idea.
Yeah, and I think the minimum value for a policy was $25, so you'd probably end up with about that as a premium. That said, I put in the replacement costs for my equipment, not their actual worth at that moment...since that is really what is important if I lose everything.

Lenses / Re: Im confused between IS and fstop advantages
« on: May 29, 2012, 03:17:22 PM »
I'd get the 135/2.
Agreed, and mostly because you won't be hand-holding the 135mm lens for video anyway...or if you do, even IS won't keep it from being shaky. You're just past the focal length where hand-held video works well.

AAA as an example is requesting copies of my receipts.   Don't really care to do that, does that seem to be the norm?
i'm going through USAA. i have 5k of coverage. for 60.00 a year. it covers my canon 7d, and lenses.
I'm going through State Farm (personal property insurance), and I think I have about $4k of stuff insured for about $50/yr. So probably pretty close in price to USAA, though I imagine USAA would generally be cheaper. It will vary by state. What's nice is it covers every circumstance...so even if I drop my camera bag off a cliff and its completely my fault, they'll replace it.

The caveat is that you cant be making any money off of your equipment or you'd be required to go the business route. Didn't need copies of my receipts at all...just gave them the camera/lens name and my serial # and the processed it pretty quickly.

I consider m43 to be a compact supplement but not a replacement for even an entry level dslr.
Yeah, that's sort of how I see it as well. I'd be far more likely to buy a M4/3rd camera and a zoom lens than a P+S if I needed something small and portable, because I'd want the control and expandability that interchangeable systems have....but, they aren't such a huge weight and size savings over my 60D that its worth it at the moment.

I will say, some of the NEX stuff is interesting, and Sony has been pushing really hard to improve. I'd put pretty good odds that I'll own the NEX-9 or whatever is is about 2-3 years from now, because my DSLR will be full-frame, and the NEX can be my outdoor adventure camera (to take with me in my kayak or on the trail on longer treks). They'll have a better set of lenses, and they'll likely have solved the AF issues. I could live with an EVF if that was the only major tradeoff.

But even with the situation now, aps-c has many advantages (longer reach, affordable good ultrawides) so that it'll stick around for some time to come simply because smaller sensors will keep being cheaper as larger ones. The Rebels will loose market share to mirrorless, but many people like me won't want to use an evf even if it's a good one
To take that a step further, the people that use APS-C at the upper levels (think 7D) are people like birders, sports guys, and nature photographers. Few if any of them would adapt to a M4/3rd camera because the EVF and AF limit them in all of those situations. Can't shoot sunrise or sunset shots of animals, because your EVF is dark and hard to see. Can't shoot birds or sports effectively because the AF is too slow.

That's not to say 4/3rds cameras won't solve some of their issues, they will, but there are some pretty major hurdles to climb to cover those use cases. And until they solve them, you won't see APS-C go away.

Also why make EF-S specific primes when Canon can make EF ones, which work for a MUCH broader audience, and when those lenses are pretty small anyway (if the 50mm f/1.8 and 35mm f/2 are too big, get a P+S). They only make EF-S lenses to solve a specific APS-C problem, like UWA (10-22), a  high quality lower light zoom (17-55), and light-weight zooms (55-250).

EOS Bodies / Re: T4i or 60D?
« on: May 24, 2012, 10:30:47 AM »
Compare to do what? The ergonomic advantages of the 60d still appliy, the touchscreen won't change that, so it's really a matter of usage scenario. But unless the sensor is seriously upgraded in dr or noise, people who can cough up the price difference should be still well-advised to get the xxd - which runs magic lantern. That is unless you want live view af, but we still need to see how it actually performs.
And for the first few months, there wont be a price difference (acually, 60D may be a bit cheaper). You can get a 60D w/ 18-135 refurb for $830ish+tax, T4i will probably retail for $899 or $999 with the 18-55 kit lens. I'd rather have the 60D's ergonomics and button layout unless the video AF is some revelation (Magic Lantern will hit the T4i fast enough).

Lenses / Re: DSLR Video: Canon 24mm 1.4L II vs 24mm 2.8 IS
« on: May 24, 2012, 08:53:35 AM »
I would either go much wider (I love the Tokina 11-16 f2.8 ) or go for a more standard lens, like a canon 28mm f2.8 or Canon 35mm f2.0.
He already has the Voigtlander 40mm f/2, so getting the 35 f/2 won't do him any good.

On the other end, for shooting casual stuff of friends and family, the Tokina is way too wide. It's a great lens if you know how to use it. But, of the lenses I own, it'd be the last one I would pick to shoot people, because of the distortion. Even at 16mm you'll find it annoying.

Personally I wouldn't spend that much on the 24mm f/1.4 just to shoot friends, but, if I had the money it'd be a nice lens to own. I think the IS primes are way overpriced, and you'd get more bang for your buck going another way. I'd either get one of the older non-IS primes and a decent stabilizer, or look for one of the IS enabled zooms (Canon 17-55, Sigma 17-50, Tamron 24-70, etc). You'd also gain a constant aperture, which is important for video work, and you'll gain a stop or two from the 15-85 you currently own.

Lenses / Re: 70-200 f4L USM - Price Increasing... ??
« on: May 24, 2012, 08:39:22 AM »
I've not been watching prices, but have read this before. However, at least pc prices seem to be *higher* before x-mas because working people want new stuff they can play with during the holidays, and prices only drop afterwards. Is this different in the dslr segment?
I'm going off the price history, and Canon historically does all their rebates and price drops in November (usually before Black Friday) and carries them into Xmas. This year, they went on for quite some time, well into February. Not sure why PC's differ, but for a lot of consumer electronics, that trend is true.

Doesn't mean you can't find deals other times of the year (20% off Canon refurbs, etc), but especially for bigger ticket items, the best time seems to be during those two big rebate periods.

Lenses / Re: 70-200 f4L USM - Price Increasing... ??
« on: May 24, 2012, 07:40:03 AM »
I have this lens and I love it. If you check the Canon Price Watch site, you'll see that it took a dip six months or so ago, and looks ready to climb up again. http://www.canonpricewatch.com/product/00055/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f4L-USM-price.html
Yeah, historically prices are at their lowest right before X-mas (Nov-Dec), and there is also a low-point that comes when they do their summer rebates. In between, the prices rise because the rebates go away, and because Canon wants each "sale" to seem like a good deal each time.

Usually the price increases are at the same time they release their new Rebel (Feb/March), and then they all go on sale in June or July once initial demand is met. This year has been a little odd though, because Canon was more aggressive with sales through Xmas, and they haven't released the new Rebel yet.

- Always use UV filters
- Get LensCoats for any lenses you use, to help keep the body of the lens clean (and provide one more barrier)
In fact, I'd get multiple UV filters so you can swap them in and out...use them like a sports videographer would use a piece of glass for a mud or water-spraying shot.

Another thought, get a rain cover for the camera. There are a bunch of cheap options I've looked at on Amazon (though be hesitant with cheap, thin plastic if it could be exposed to high temperatures), but that would act as a buffer to keep that stuff off your lens and body. Its the same principle.

I agree with the sentiment about the macro lenses, and honestly, anything with more range would probably be helpful. The further you can place the camera from the pan, the better

Point taken, but I guess I shoot a little differently than that. I generally shoot my landscapes on my 70-200 between f/11 and f/16, and my flowing water shots with that lens usually run in the .5 to a full second range. I'm not going to get out and say my way is the best way, but hopefully you get what I'm saying.
Oh, I do too usually (f/8-f/11), especially with the water. At least in ideal situations. But, in a pinch, it's that I can get that shot without a tripod if I don't have one with me. Because 1/30th is that sort of dividing line. Without IS that isn't possible. I take my gear with my while kayaking, and I don't always want to lug my tripod with me.

Same is true of large volume rivers (Potomac at Great Falls comes to mind), where the water is going so fast that 1/15th is plenty to get what you normally need 1/2 second or more to get. I can work my way to frame shots I couldn't with a tripod and still get decent results. Still a niche use, but, worth the extra money for me.

But...but...If you use IS, then you're going to be able to reduce/eliminate camera-shake blur, but not necessarily motion blur. You might get away with handholding at 1/15 sec., but you're still going to capture any movement within that time.
Yeah, but I actually find I use my 70-200 for a lot of landscape shots. I don't always have a tripod with me, but 1/10th or 1/15th is enough to blur a water falling. Or it might be the difference between shooting the landscape at f/4 or f/8.

I went with the IS version because it was sharper, but I think I've found some use for the IS here and there.

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 Pancake Coming [CR3]
« on: May 22, 2012, 01:45:42 PM »
I would really like this pancake lens to be f2.0 or even better f1.4 ... also if it would make it a little bigger ... that would make an awesome lens for natural light under difficult conditions and still light to always have with you on a FF body ... f2.8 is too slow here ...
So, you basically want the 35 f/2 or the 35 f/1.4L....Canon already makes those lenses for you. Unless the f/2 is no good and you absolutely have to save that extra 3/4" in lens length; or 7oz is too heavy.

I'd imagine one of the few ways they could make a pancake f/1.4 lens would not involve an EF mount, which would piss people off more than this thing being f/2.8. Or it'd cost more than the 35L, cause it'd have to use some specialty glass to accomplish as much with fewer elements

Also, its not like there are a wealth of low-light pancake lenses out there. I think Samsung has a 30mm f/2, Panasonic has their 20mm f/1.7, there's the Voigtlander 40mm f/2, what else? Most I've seen are at f/2.8, probably for a reason

Pages: 1 ... 43 44 [45] 46 47 ... 53